American Coleman Co. v. Intrawest Bank of Southglenn, N.A.’s Empirical Analysis
887 F.2d 1382 · 1989
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently November 2009
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Colorado Springs National Bank v. United States · Philadelphia Gear Corporation v. Central Bank · Florom v. Elliott Manufacturing · Marino Industries Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The duty of the issuing Bank is ministerial in nature, confined to checking the presented documents carefully against what the letter of credit requires.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““In the present case, it is clear that [plaintiff s] request for payment presented November 13, 1986, was not in technical or literal compliance with the terms of the letter of credit. [Plaintiffs] reference to two different notes could easily have caused the bank’s documents examiner some confusion. Accordingly, because I conclude that the rule of strict compliance, as it is applied in Colorado, requires literal compliance with the terms and requirements set forth in the letter of credit, and diere was no such literal compliance in tiiis case.” 887 F.2d at 1385.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““While it is apparent from the cases that minute discrepancies which could not possibly mislead a document examiner are usually disregarded, this does not constitute a retreat from the strict compliance standard applicable in this case inasmuch as the district court found drat ‘[plaintiffs] reference to two different notes could easily have caused the bank’s documents examiner some confusion.’ ” 887 F.2d at 1386.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.